From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/5/2026 3:09 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:   
   > On 1/5/2026 2:49 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:   
   >> [Supersedes in order to correct typos]   
   >>   
   >> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:   
   >>> On 1/5/2026 1:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:   
   >>>> You appear to be   
   >>>> referring to a definition of "dimension" that is used in science-   
   >>>> fiction   
   >>>> and fantasy instead.   
   >>> [...]   
   >>>   
   >>> Ponder on it:   
   >>>   
   >>> (4th Dimension Explained By A High-School Student)   
   >>> https://youtu.be/eGguwYPC32I   
   >>   
   >> The argument that they are making about time (not being "the 4th   
   >> dimension")   
   >> is pseudo-scientific and ridiculous, based on their ignorance of what it   
   >> means when we say "4th dimension" in that regard (which I just   
   >> explained to   
   >> you in detail).  Scientifically it is complete nonsense to say "every   
   >> dimension has time in it" as they do.   
   >>   
   >> *Their* ignorance is excusable, though, because they are just a high   
   >> school   
   >> kid and are not expected to know about or understand pseudo-Riemannian   
   >> manifolds like spacetime (although they could have certainly have found   
   >> books that explained it at their level of understanding).  Yours is   
   >> not (as   
   >> I just explained it to you in detail).   
   >>   
   >   
   > Say to explain a 3d point in time we need (x, y, z, t), t for time.   
   >   
   > For a 4d point we need (x, y, z, w, t), t for time.   
   >   
   > t is in every dimension?   
   >   
   > For a 2d (x, y, t)   
   >   
   > For a 1d (x, t)   
      
   Why not keep time in the dimension, aka a 0 dimension is a 1 ary vector   
   (t), a 1d is (x, t), a 2d is (x, y, t), 3d (x, y, z, t), on and on...   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)